@Value is too restrictive on naming

• Key: SHALE-185
• Type: Bug
• Status: Resolved
• Resolution: Fixed
• Priority: Major
• Assignee: Unassigned
• Reporter: Adam Brod
• Component/s: Tiger
• Affects Version/s: 1.0.3-SNAPSHOT
• Fix Version/s: 1.0.3

Description

We use a prefix convention for our member variables. All private member fields being with 'm_'. For example, in my managed bean, I have a private field m_fileId with getFileId() and setFileId() methods.

This works fine when I use the faces-config.xml to configure my beans, because I just say the property-name is "fileId". This doesn't work for Shale-Tiger - I get an exception because there is no setter for m_fileId. As far as I know, the Java Beans spec doesn't mandate the name of the private variable, just the getters and setters.

Shale-Tiger should be more flexible to support this.

Here are three possible solutions:

1) The @Value annotation should take an optional property field to allow me to specify the property the field corresponds to. E.g.

@Value(value="#{param.fileId}", property="fileId")
private Long m_fileId;

2) The @Value annotation could be applied to methods or fields (much like JPA annotations). E.g.:
@Value("#{param.fileId}")
public void setFileId(Long fileId) { this.m_fileId = fileId; }

3) I specify some mapping rules somewhere that define all member fields begin with "m_", so the annotation processor should handle that. That is similar to what Eclipse does. You can configure field prefixes, and then the tool automatically handles those when generating getters and setters.

Comments

[Craig McClanahan]

I agree with your summary statement. At the moment, I'm leaning towards your solution #1, but the idea of annotating a getter or setter (like you can do in JPA entity classes) might also be a good idea.

[Craig McClanahan]

Fixed in nightly build 20060627. You can now optionally specify a "name" attribute on @Property to set the JavaBeans property name being affected.